Anyone else taken the 16 personalities test and had this result -

[Dan Arnautu]

2 hours ago, Krisena said:

You can't divide it into as many categories as you want, only as many as are reasonably independent from each other. If two sub-traits always move in the same direction (but are maybe offset by a little factor) then they are for intents and purposes the same trait.

What they're finding is that the big 5 traits can be broken down into new independent traits... Basically a more granular model.

For example, conscientiousness, which can be broken up into two major sub-traits: order and industriousness. We can all agree that both order and industriousness is a part of conscientiousness, but we can also see that order and industriousness are not the same thing. The degree to which you put your environment in order (which includes traits like perfectionism) and the degree to which you work hard. The statistics confirm this. People can actually be high in order and low in perfectionism and vice versa, though these sub-categories will be a bit more similar than the big 5 categories are similar to other big 5 categories.

Yeah, I was saying that making it into a more granular model (e.g. assigning low openness and high agreeableness a term) just causes needless complexity. You can just call the traits for what they are.

Yes, the big 5 traits are composed of multiple sub-traits, as you say, of course. And I agree with the fact that one can be high on one sub-trait and low on another of the same dimension of the big 5.

I think we can both agree though that someone has a score of 10 or less in conscientiousness doesn't have even a decent score at any of the sub-traits of conscientiousness. For someone to be high in perfectionism and low on every other sub-trait, the conscientiousness score should still of more than a 10. 

2 hours ago, Krisena said:

It depends on the job in question because different types of jobs are optimally filled by different personality styles.

And you also have to take into account that people who have experience and/or a high level of skills have found a way to work that suits their personality style, regardless of conscientiousness.

I am personally a low conscientiousness person, specifically high order/low industriousness. This means that I'm pretty lazy by nature. Does that mean that I'm lazy at work? No, because a job is a job and my livelihood depends on me doing it right. I will however value my free time and make sure I get a lot of extra time for idling, which means that you won't see me working myself to death for you.

People with high conscientiousness have other problems that people without high conscientiousness don't suffer from. I recommend checking out Jordan Peterson's lectures on the subject.

Of course, I wouldn't want a highly agreeable person as my bodyguard. I would want a psychopath that is very low on agreeableness. No personality type is wrong. Also, some are better than others depending on the environment you're in. 

People that are trying to avoid work are not ones I would like to hire. I want people that love to work, that enjoy it. Why would I hire someone that doesn't love the work they do? Of course, I'm not talking about basic cashier jobs. But, if you are a video editor for example, I give you exciting projects and you aren't willing to work hard for them and don't enjoy working, why would I want to keep you around? 

Hiring a person higher in conscientiousness is always a bigger win. They will work harder for you. And that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them accordingly. I am willing to pay for high quality work. And so do most conscious employers.

2 hours ago, Krisena said:

Isn't it only natural to be wary of people who want to know your personality? What motivations do they have for wanting to know what can potentially be very intimate and sensitive information that can easily be used to manipulate you? To me it seems more rational to be suspicious of the person who wants to know your personality than to be suspicious of the person who doesn't feel comfortable handing out that information.

In other words, I think this is 180 degrees the other way around - if anything, it indicates machiavellianism to want to know other people's personality profiles. However, that's also an exaggeration. The simple fact is that neither the degree to which you want to know someone's personality nor the degree to which you are willing to give other people insight into your personality is indicative of machiavellianism. There exists completely normal, down to earth, legitimate reasons for both.

I forgot to add a caveat. I always offer my results first. My machiavellians score is 0. Why would you be suspicious of me for taking the test then?

And I don't think it's sensitive information. If somebody is anxious, you will see it anyway. If they are agreeable, you will see it anyway eventually. Why not cut the effort and get it over with faster? Why waste time figuring each other out?

[Dan Arnautu]

2 hours ago, Annoynymous said:

well thank you for your recommendation, but I don't find these direct enough. You don't have to say that I am doing good, because first of all, if I am that much good, u wouldn't have given me so many recommendations. I myself feel that I have got lots of improvement in order to touch "good" mark.

I want you tell me exactly how you feel about my assesment result. if it shows some positives, tell it. if it shows some negative, tell it also. I need an honest review based on personal recommendation, not generalization.

Please read my reply more carefully.

I said there is nothing wrong with being introverted. I am too. IF it limits you in some way though, I offered to give you helpful resources.

High agreeableness is perfect IF you are also assertive. I don't know if you are. In case you aren't, I gave you some resources for that.

So you may only have to address conscientiousness and emotional stability, which is at least 10x better than most people that gave me their results.

Most people are shipwrecks, let me tell you that. So be glad you may only have those two to improve.

I personally need to work on assertiveness and anxiousness for example.

[Dan Arnautu]

2 hours ago, Krisena said:

That means that you shouldn't necessarily see your personality as something "to be improved upon" - in fact, the science shows that it's more or less impossible to change your Big 5 personality anyway.

Your personality is you, and while yes, it's important to fit into the world, it's a perspective that gets too heavily weighted in today's society where it's the buyer's market when it comes to labour. We are asked to sacrifice ourselves in the name of the corporations we work for.

Since your personality is you, you should instead seek to make the world into a place that will nurture you and place yourself in situations and contexts that synergize with your personality so that you can exist in the world as a healthy human being.

At first I thought that too. We have to keep in mind that science doesn't do many studies with outliers. Most people aren't willing to change. That's why the results can reflect that.

With self-development work, I elevated my conscientiousness score from 56 to 95, my agreeableness score from 80 to 98, my Honesty-Humility (Hexaco) from 46 to 90 and decreased my machiavellianism from 30 to 4. Also, the anxiety sub-trait of Emotionality decreased from around 60 to 33.

Change is very possible. The problem is that this involves PERSONALITY change. You are changing everything about you, from how you act to how think and how you emote. How many people are actually willing to do this - to kill their current personality so that a new one emerges? 

Only the outliers will do this. The rest of the people will remain stuck with the same problems for the rest of their lives.

What you are saying is equivalent to someone saying: "Why the hell should I change? I don't need to change. I can remain a lazy asshole. I just need to find an environment that accepts me as a lazy asshole, and then we will live happily ever after."

That's just the devil rationalizing his behavior and avoiding deep inner work. What makes you unique won't die in the process - only what's impure. But I challenge you to find that for yourself.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Dan Arnautu

[Krisena]

9 hours ago, Dan Arnautu said:

Of course, I wouldn't want a highly agreeable person as my bodyguard. I would want a psychopath that is very low on agreeableness. No personality type is wrong. Also, some are better than others depending on the environment you're in. 

People that are trying to avoid work are not ones I would like to hire. I want people that love to work, that enjoy it. Why would I hire someone that doesn't love the work they do? Of course, I'm not talking about basic cashier jobs. But, if you are a video editor for example, I give you exciting projects and you aren't willing to work hard for them and don't enjoy working, why would I want to keep you around? 

Hiring a person higher in conscientiousness is always a bigger win. They will work harder for you. And that doesn't mean you shouldn't pay them accordingly. I am willing to pay for high quality work. And so do most conscious employers.

I forgot to add a caveat. I always offer my results first. My machiavellians score is 0. Why would you be suspicious of me for taking the test then?

And I don't think it's sensitive information. If somebody is anxious, you will see it anyway. If they are agreeable, you will see it anyway eventually. Why not cut the effort and get it over with faster? Why waste time figuring each other out?

People can be motivated to do their work for other reasons than pure industriousness. For example a person who is high in creativity (sub-openness) or curiosity (sub-openness) who are driven by the need to let this energy find an outlet. Just as one example.

Seriously, dude, you need to read more about this. Your idea of how the nature of the Big 5 and what you can read into it is too simplistic. You seem to use it more as an excuse to judge people and act out discrimination. I shudder to think that you would automatically dismiss someone because they have a low conscientiousness score. Again, I recommend checking out the sources I mentioned.

Calling people machiavellian just because they won't share sensitive information about themselves is just deluded. Yeah, sure, you don't think the information is sensitive, but have you thought about what the other person might feel? Because you can absolutely use someone's Big 5 score to manipulate them and discriminate against them, just like you're proving with your very words. To me it just comes off as a way for you to denigrate people if they don't indulge your personal curiosity about them. Like I mentioned, there are perfectly valid reasons why someone wouldn't share that information.

Excuse me for using such strong words, but apparently my message isn't getting through.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Krisena

[Igor82]

Just took the tests for the first time

Big5:

• Open mindedness: 42
• Conscientiousness: 71
• Extraversion: 63
• Agreeableness: 55
• Negative emotionality: 6

Dark triad:

• Narcissism: 2.3 (30)
• Machiavellianism: 0.7 (1)
• Psychopathy 0.4 (0)

I took them just once, answering honestly as soon as I felt certain.. I usually dont take persoanlity tests, I have not found a use for them yet.

[Dan Arnautu]

1 hour ago, Krisena said:

People can be motivated to do their work for other reasons than pure industriousness. For example a person who is high in creativity (sub-openness) or curiosity (sub-openness) who are driven by the need to let this energy find an outlet. Just as one example.

Seriously, dude, you need to read more about this. Your idea of how the nature of the Big 5 and what you can read into it is too simplistic. You seem to use it more as an excuse to judge people and act out discrimination. I shudder to think that you would automatically dismiss someone because they have a low conscientiousness score. Again, I recommend checking out the sources I mentioned.

Calling people machiavellian just because they won't share sensitive information about themselves is just deluded. Yeah, sure, you don't think the information is sensitive, but have you thought about what the other person might feel? Because you can absolutely use someone's Big 5 score to manipulate them and discriminate against them, just like you're proving with your very words. To me it just comes off as a way for you to denigrate people if they don't indulge your personal curiosity about them. Like I mentioned, there are perfectly valid reasons why someone wouldn't share that information.

Excuse me for using such strong words, but apparently my message isn't getting through.

I will look more into it. I'm open to being wrong. And of course I don't know everything about the big 5.

I think I am not judging people here though. People are telling you how they are on these tests. I recall a question on the dark triad where it asks you if you like to pick on people or bully them. I ain't judging them as a bully in this case. They just told me. Just as unconscientious people tell you they are disorganized.

In my experience until now, all the unconscientiouss people I met were unreliable. I am open to seeing the opposite in the future. I would love to see a reliable cunconscientiouss person. That would tell me I have a lot more to learn. It hasn't happened until now though.

I'll tell you this though. I personally know extraordinary musicians that are highly unconscientiouss, like, world-class. So you do have a point.  But, although they are great musicians and they are my colleagues, our coach tells me often enough that they show up late for lessons and events, rely solely on talent and little work, and are very forgetful. They didn't even show up for the free lessons they won. And lessons with this coach are very expensive.

I dismiss people with a low conscientiousness score because I've been on both sides of the spectrum and that would fit my future business needs. For the businesses I'm gonna start in the future I'm probably not gonna accept people with a score lower than 80. Might seem harsh at first glance, but tough titty. I don't have time to hold your hand all the way. I want self-motivated, hard working, organized and disciplined people to work with me. People that can't wait to get to work the next day because it brings them more joy than leisure activities, just like in my case.

If I wanted to hire a cashier I wouldn't worry too much about conscientiousness. They are gonna do the job. What I'm talking about is creating a strong team to build an amazing business. I can't afford loose ends.

I might hire people with low agreeableness though because they provide a different perspective and cut through bullshit, but I won't make a compromise on conscientiousness. 

Finally, I won't judge people if they don't want to take the test. If they don't want to share them with me, I'm gonna find out how they are anyway through observation. Usually I'm not giving them out of curiosity, but to protect myself if they have a high dark triad score. It saved my ass many times.

For example, psychopathic and machiavellic roommate offered to sign a paper for my university while I was in another country. Some kind of legal protocol needed to be made in order for him to be able to do that. He later admitted that he could have used that signature for anything, even buying a house or take credit in my name. I knew he was machiavellic and would have no shame in fucking people close to him over for personal gain, so I was very cautious and did not give it to him. This is just one instance out of many.

In my mind, better safe than sorry.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I appreciate your perspective and think it can be valid. It just hasn't been validated with my personal experience yet, and It's just a personal preference not to have low conscientiousness work colleagues around me.